JUDGMENT : (J.C. Doshi, J.) 1. These are claimants’ appeal filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “the Act”). 2. First Appeal No.539 of 2006 is filed by the appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment & Award passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.260 of 1992 dated 09-06-2005 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Morvi,. 2.1 First Appeal No.352 of 2006 is filed by the appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment & Award passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.259 of 1992 dated 09-06-2005 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Morvi. 3. I propose to decide both these appeals by common judgment, as both of them arise from selfsame common judgment and award. 4. Brief facts of the case are as under:- 4.1 On 19.10.1992, deceased Jerambhai Dev jibhai and decd. Hemantsang Gangaram both were coming on Scooter towards Morvi. Decd. Hemantsang was sitting on back seat. When they rashed near the factory of Ajanta Clock at about 13.15 hrs. at that time the truck No. HR-14-2324 came from wrong side rashly and negligently with Ingla full speed and dashed with the aforesaid scooter. Both the decd. sustained serious injuries and died in the said accident. Therefore, the heirs of deed. Jerambhai have filed C.C. Bo. 260/92 to get ge ati compensation of Rs. 5 lac and the heirs of decd Ju or beso Hemantsang have filed C.C. No. 259/92 to get bas bac compensation of Rs. 15 lac Both the said claim petitions have arisen out of same incident and hence, aiton no both the petitions are consolidated and evidence betlocs vist recorded in C.C. No. 259/92 and decided by this loust common judgment. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr. DD Bhatt for the appellants – original claimants and learned advocate Mr. Sunil Parikh for the respondent No.3 – insurance company. 6. Learned advocate for the appellants would mainly argue on the aspect that thohgh learned Tribunal has unjustly considered 80% negligency of the scooter driver in causing the road accident, yet he would submit that the learned Tribunal’s approach for calculating the negligency of the tortfeasor is totally erroneous as the truck driver did not enter into the witness box to unfurl the real scene of the road accident. He would further submit that instead of taking adverse inference against the truck driver, the learned Tribunal has fastened the negligency of the scooter driver i.e. deceased Jerajbhai to the extent of 80%. He would further submit that even, the learned Tribunal forgot to countenance that the truck is HMV and the scooter is smaller vehicle. He would further submit that the FIR was lodged against the truck driver so also charge sheet. The FIR was filed by the third party, but all these aspects have not been properly considered by the learned Tribunal while assessing the negligency of the vehicle owners. He would further submit that thus, this is a fit case where this Court should interfere with the findings of facts about the negligency of the drivers of the vehicle drawn by the learned Tribunal. He would further submit that MACP No.259 of 2012 was filed by legal heirs of deceased Hemantsang, who was pillion rider in the scooter and yet, the learned Tribunal without understanding the concept of composite negligency and contributory negligency, deducted the amount of compensation equal to negligency of the scooter driver from the total compensation worked out for deceased Hemantsang. So, he submits that it is clear defects on the part of the learned Tribunal. 6.1. On the income aspect, learned advocate Mr. Bhatt has relied upon the judgment in case of Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram and another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and others reported in 2021 LawSuit (SC) 595 to submit that even in absence of documentary evidence, when the learned Tribunal is guessing the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal should not detach from the reality. He would further submit that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, merely because the claimants were unable to produce the documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased, the same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. 6.2 On above submission, learned advocate Mr. Bhatt submits that the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in granting unjust compensation, which by no angel is just, fair and reasonable compensation. 6.3 Upon such submission, learned advocate Mr. Bhatt for the appellants prays to allow these first appeals. 7. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. 6.2 On above submission, learned advocate Mr. Bhatt submits that the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in granting unjust compensation, which by no angel is just, fair and reasonable compensation. 6.3 Upon such submission, learned advocate Mr. Bhatt for the appellants prays to allow these first appeals. 7. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Sunil Parikh appearing for the insurance company while supporting the impugned judgment and award, would submit that the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the view to deduct the amount equivalent to the negligency of the driver of the scooter from the compensation to be granted to the legal heirs of deceased Hemantsang, who was the pillion rider in the scooter. He would further submit that as the driver of the scooter is also the owner of the scooter, the insurance company of such vehicle therefore, is entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the scooter. In this way, the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted the amount of compensation equivalent to the negligency of the drivers of the scooter and truck assessed from the compensation to be granted to the pillion rider. He would further submit that from the scene of accident so also from the panchanama, it could be discerned that the truck was on its correct side and while scooter driver was overtaking another truck going ahead and swerved from his normal lane of riding to the wrong side and collided with the frontal part of the ongoing truck resulted into accidental death of both the persons. He would further submit that looking to the scene of road accident, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed that the scooter driver was negligent upto 80% and the truck diver was upto 20%. He therefore, submits that no interference is required in the impugned judgment and award in assessing the contributory negligency of drivers of both the offending vehicles. 7.1 As far as income aspect is concerned, learned advocate Mr. Parikh would submit that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 , modification can be done under the non-conventional head of compensation. 7.1 As far as income aspect is concerned, learned advocate Mr. Parikh would submit that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 , modification can be done under the non-conventional head of compensation. However, the income assessed by the learned Tribunal need not be disturbed, as it is just and proper, more particularly, in view of the fact that the road accident took place in 1992. 7.2 Upon such submission, learned advocate Mr. Parikh prays to pass necessary orders. 8. Regard being had to the rival submissions of learned advocates for both the sides, it is noticeable that the killer road accident has taken away lives of two young person. Undisputedluy, on an unfortunate day, deceased Jerajbhai was riding the scooter and deceased Hemantsang was pillion rider going towards Morbi at the times. On coming truck dashed with the scooter resulted into death of both the persons. The FIR of which has been lodged against the truck driver. The FIR is produced at Exh.41 given by one Mr. Babulal Raising, resident of Morbi, who had a Panbidi stall near the scene of accident. He is also eye witness to the road accident; he is third party to the road accident. Therefore, the version he has given in the FIR is important to read. According to him, in the FIR which he has given, the accident took place in the form of head-on-collision. As such, by way of FIR, the aspect of negligency has been earmarked over the driver of the truck and even charge sheet is filed. The FIR at Exh.41 and spot panchnama at Exh.42 so also the charge sheet against the truck driver are placed on record. To rebut this evidence, the truck driver did not enter into the witness box nor he deposed on oath to give best scene of road accident to the learned Tribunal and to discharge his burden. Noticeably, even he or the owner of the truck did not file written statement to counter the pleadings of the claimants. To rebut this evidence, the truck driver did not enter into the witness box nor he deposed on oath to give best scene of road accident to the learned Tribunal and to discharge his burden. Noticeably, even he or the owner of the truck did not file written statement to counter the pleadings of the claimants. The learned Tribunal went into assessing the negligency of the scooter driver on the ground that the truck was on the left side and the scooter driver went it to collide with the frontal side of the truck by changing his lane of riding and therefore, the scooter driver is 80% negligent. To establish contributory negligency, some act of omission should be attributed to a person against whom it is alleged. Mere failure to avoid collusion by taking some extraordinary precaution is not ipso facto constitute negligency. The principle of res ipsa locutor in these circumstances has to be given due weightage. The panchnama and FIR on record points finger on negligency towards the truck driver. Charge sheet which is filed by the police after thorough investigation also indicates that the truck driver was held to be negligent for causing death of two persons. These documents remained unchallenged on the part of the truck driver. 9. At this juncture, I may refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of K.Anusha Versus Regional Manager, Shriram General Ins.Co.Ltd. rendered in Civil Appeal No.6237 of 2021, wherein the observations and findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 13 reads as under:- “13. Therefore, the entire reasoning of the High Court on issue No. 1 is riddled with inherent contradictions. To establish contributory negligence, some act or omission, which materially contributed to the accident or the damage, should be attributed to the person against whom it is alleged. In Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak, 2002 ACJ 1720 (SC), this court quoted a decision of the High Court of Australia in Astley v. Austrust Ltd., (1999) 73 ALJR 403, to hold that ".where, by his negligence, one party places another in a situation of danger, which compels that other to act quickly in order to extricate himself, it does not amount to contributory negligence, if that other acts in a way which, with the benefit of hindsight, is shown not to have been the best way out of the difficulty". In fact, the statement of law in Swadling v. Cooper, (1931) AC 1, that ".the mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some extraordinary precaution does not in itself constitute negligence.", was also quoted with approval by this court. Therefore, we are compelled to reverse the finding of the Tribunal and the High Court on the question of contributory negligence.” 10. Non-entering of the truck driver into the witness box is one of the major drawback, which ought to have been weighed against the truck drive by the learned Tribunal while assessing the contributory negligence. The fact, which is undisputed that two persons died at the instance. The scooter driver while overtaking the vehicle going ahead, dashed with the ongoing truck. Indeed, the oncoming truck was on its right side, but at the same time, the truck being heavy vehicle was required to take more precaution to avoid the accident. All that can be said that the learned Tribunal riddled with inherent error in assessing the contributory negligence of the scooter driver. 11. At this juncture, I may refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of N.K.V.Bros.Private Limited Versus M.Karumai Ammal reported in 1980 (3) SCC 457 . Para 3 is important, which reads as under:- “3. Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the Courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other case, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The Court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasising this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their "neighbour". Indeed, the State must seriously consider no-fault liability by legislation. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their "neighbour". Indeed, the State must seriously consider no-fault liability by legislation. A second aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the compensation or undue parsimony practised by tribunals. We must remember that judicial tribunals are State organs and Art. 41 of the Constitution lays the jurisprudential foundation for state relief against accidental disablement of citizens. There is no justification for niggardliness in compensation. A third factor which is harrowing is the enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by several years. The States must appoint sufficient number of tribunals and the High Court should insist upon quick disposals so that the trauma and tragedy already sustained may not be magnified by the injustice of delayed justice. Many States are unjustly indifferent in this regard.” 12. The re-analysis of the FIR, panchnama and other documents on record and in absence of the evidence of the income of the truck driver on the record, indicates that the scooter driver cannot be held negligent for more than 40%. Meaning thereby, the ratio of the inter se negligency of the scooter driver and the truck driver could figure to be 40% - 60% respectively to that extent and therefore, the findings of the learned Tribunal in this regard deserves to be corrected and according corrected. 13. Another inherent error on the part of the learned Tribunal could be discerned that despite deceased Hemantsang was pillion rider in the scooter, while assessing the compensation, the learned Tribunal deducted amount of compensation equivalent to the negligency of the scooter driver i.e. deceased Jerajbhai from the total amount of compensation receivable to the claimant deceased Hemantsang. Actus of the learned Tribunal thus, expresses that it had failed to understand the concept of composite and contributory negligence. These legal terminology has been eloquently expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan & Ors. [ 2008 (3) SCC 748 , which reads as under:- “6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong-doer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence of the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.” 14. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Khenyei Versus New India Assurance Company Limited reported in 2015 (9) SCC 273 , has observed as under:- “What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is as follows : (i) In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several. (ii) In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tort feasors vis a vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them. (iii) In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them. (iii) In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/ extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings. (iv) It would not be appropriate for the court/tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tort feasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tort feasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award.” 15. Thus, the learned Tribunal committed error while assessing the compensation for deceased Hemantsang, whereby the amount equivalent to negligency of deceased Jesajbhai – driver of sctooer had been deducted from the total compensation worked out. 16. The next question arise that whether the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing just and fair compensation. As far as deceased Hemantsang is concerned, according to the school leaving certificate, his birth date was 10.10.1959. So, on the date of the accident, he was 33 years old and thus, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 , multiplier of 16 is required to be given. Deceased Hemantsang was the primary teacher. His monthly pay for October, 1992 is shown to be Rs.2626/-, Rs.300/- was deduction (Exh.108). Thus, net income of the deceased comes to Rs.2326/- per month. Apart from being a primary teacher, the deceased was holding agricultural field, documents of which are produced at Exh.55 to 58 and 60 to 61, which demonstrate that he was holding the agricultural land bearing survey No.272 paiki admeasuring 3 acre. Thus, net income of the deceased comes to Rs.2326/- per month. Apart from being a primary teacher, the deceased was holding agricultural field, documents of which are produced at Exh.55 to 58 and 60 to 61, which demonstrate that he was holding the agricultural land bearing survey No.272 paiki admeasuring 3 acre. The learned Tribunal while determining the monthly income of deceased Hemantsang, was also inclined to take into consideration the income of the other teachers, which were nearly Rs.10000/- per month and after adding future prospect, quantified the average income at Rs.8500/-. The documentary evidence which is established and proved before the learned Tribunal to quantify the average income of the deceased is not acceptable in view of several decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Thus, what could be considered as monthly income of the deceased is Rs.2326/-, as it derived from the salary certificate and by adding around Rs.1700/- towards compensation for supervisory loss to the agricultural income per month. Thus, total income of compensation could be derived to Rs.4000/- per month. Deceased Hemantsang was permanent employee and therefore, 50% rise for the future prospect is required to be given so also multiplier of 16 and 1/3 deduction is necessary, for personal and pocket expenses in view of number of dependants. Since the issue of composite negligency for deceased Hemantsang, who is a pillion rider in the scooter, the legal heirs of deceased Hemantsang have choice to recover the amount from any of the tortfeasor. Therefore, negligency of the amount equivalent to the negligency of the driver of scooter in causing the road accident would not be deducted from the compensation derived and quantified for the death of deceased Hemantsang. 17. As far as compensation to be granted to the legal heirs of deceased Jerajbhai is concerned, in view of Exh.114, where his birth date is shown as 1.1.1959 on the date of accident, he was 34 years old, which lead to applying multiplier of 16. The deceased Jerajbhai was a big farmer having 32 vigha agricultural land with water resource. The affidavit of widow of deceased Jerajbhai at Exh.96 indicates that the deceased was earning Rs.60,000/- per annum from doing agricultural operations. He had 1/3rd ownership in the tractor and was earning Rs.15000/-. So, according to the claimants, deceased Jesangbhai was earning Rs.75000/- per annum. The deceased Jerajbhai was a big farmer having 32 vigha agricultural land with water resource. The affidavit of widow of deceased Jerajbhai at Exh.96 indicates that the deceased was earning Rs.60,000/- per annum from doing agricultural operations. He had 1/3rd ownership in the tractor and was earning Rs.15000/-. So, according to the claimants, deceased Jesangbhai was earning Rs.75000/- per annum. No evidence was produced on record to authenticate the income of the deceased. However, the revenue records of the agricultural field are produced at Exhs.118 to 128, which indicates that the deceased was a big farmer. In order to prove the income of the deceased, certain certificates issued by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat are placed on record at Exhs.99 and 100, but it cannot be treated to be gospel truth to establish the income of the deceased, more particularly, when Sarpanch is not examined nor any accounts are produced by the claimants. Since there is no specific evidence in regards to the income of the deceased Jerajbhai, it leads the Court to do some guess work in the fact and reality of the record. The accident took place in 1992, the rate of minimum wage at the relevant time for skilled labourer was Rs.900/- and Rs.800/- for semi skilled and unskilled labourer. The learned Tribunal assessed Rs.18000/- per annum as income of deceased Jerajbhai to quantify just and fair compensation. The learned Tribunal has also taken some unknown formula and came to average income of Rs.24000/- per annum. Though approval of Rs.24000/- per annum as income of the deceased based on some unknown formula, according to this Court, looking to large chunk of the land the deceased possessed, the income of the deceased could be treated at Rs.20,000/- per annum on the guess work and 40% rise is required to be added towards loss of future prospect and since there were five claimants, 1/5th should be deducted from each claimant. 18. Apt to note that the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of Legislation. The concept of just and fair compensation is integral and seminal to the MV Act. The compensation to be awarded under the principle of just and fair compensation to the injured of the road accident or the legal representative/s of the deceased person is based on the principle of fairness, reasonableness and equability. The concept of just and fair compensation is integral and seminal to the MV Act. The compensation to be awarded under the principle of just and fair compensation to the injured of the road accident or the legal representative/s of the deceased person is based on the principle of fairness, reasonableness and equability. Anguish of the heart or for mental turbulence being consequential result of the road accident cannot be actually compensated, but the quint essentiality lies in adopting holistic and pragmatic view to the computation of the compensation for the loss sustained, which is to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Although exact or perfect arithmetical calculation of compensation for reparation of the loss arrived from the road accident is almost impossible. The Tribunal is bestowed with duty to make an endevour to award just compensation regardless of the amount claimed by the claimant. The determination of the quantum of compensation therefore, must be liberal and not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scale. Needless to state that money may be awarded, so that something tangible may be procured to reach something else of the like nature, which has been destroyed or lost, but money cannot renew physical frame that has been battered and shattered being a result of the road accident. Yet Tribunal to endavour to bring back victim to stage of pre-road accident as far as possible Thus, the award must be reasonable and cannot be assessed with moderation though it cannot at the same time be pity and what could be granted must be just, fair and equitable compensation. 19. In Chandramani Nanda Vs. Sarat Chandra Swain another, rendered in Special Leave to Appeal No.3050 of 2023, the Hon’ble Apex Court after referring to the judgment of Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto reported in 2023(1) SCC 204 held that it is duty of the Court to assess fair compensation. The rough calculation made by the claimant is not bar or the upper limit. 20. Therefore, total compensation qua deceased Jesangbhai & deceased Hemantsang would be as under, which the claimant/s is/are entitled to get. The rough calculation made by the claimant is not bar or the upper limit. 20. Therefore, total compensation qua deceased Jesangbhai & deceased Hemantsang would be as under, which the claimant/s is/are entitled to get. Particulars Amount (Rs.) Future Loss of Income 89,600/- (Rs.20,000/- x 40% = Rs.28000/- - 1/5 deduction = Rs.5600 x 16 multiplier Loss of Estate 18,150/- Pain, shock and suffering 18,150/- Funeral expenses 18,150/- Consortium 2,42,000/- (48,400/- x 5 dependents) Total… 3,86,050/- Less :40% self negligence of the deceased 2,31,630/- Awarded by the Tribunal 1,99,300/- Additional amount which is awarded 32,330/- 21. Therefore, I hold that the claimants are entitled to get the enhanced compensation of Rs.32,330/- with 9% p.a. interest from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation, which would meet the ends of justice. Rest of the direction(s) of the Tribunal remain same. Particulars Amount (Rs.) Future Loss of Income (Rs.4000/- x 50% = Rs.6000/- - 1/3 deduction = Rs.2000 x 12 x 16 multiplier Loss of Estate 18,150/- Pain, shock and suffering 18,150/- Funeral expenses 18,150/- Consortium 1,45,200/- (48,400 x 3 dependents) Total… 5,83,650/- Awarded by the Tribunal 1,99,300/- Additional amount which is awarded 3,84,350/- 21.1 Thus, I hold that the claimants are entitled to get the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,84,350/-- with 9% p.a. interest from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation, which would meet the ends of justice. Rest of the direction(s) of the Tribunal remain same. 22. For the reasons recorded above, both the first appeals are partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award are modified to the aforesaid extent. The insurance companies are directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest as stated herein above within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 22.1 In view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Khenyei Versus New India Assurance Company Limited reported in 2015 (9) SCC 273 , in case of composite negligency, if one wrongdoer ends up with liability to pay compensation more than his liability assessed, he shall be entitled to recover the same on the basis of the judgment from other wrongdoer. 22.2 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law. 22.3 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.